On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:40:52PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
From discussion on IRC earlier this evening, it looks like the most
pragmatic approach will be to get the apt and aptitude sbuild
resolvers to strip the alternatives (after arch reduction), which
will make them behave pretty much
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:45:06AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:40:52PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
From discussion on IRC earlier this evening, it looks like the most
pragmatic approach will be to get the apt and aptitude sbuild
resolvers to strip the alternatives
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:27:00PM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:45:06AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:40:52PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
From discussion on IRC earlier this evening, it looks like the most
pragmatic approach will be to get
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.1.0
Severity: normal
Patch attached.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.32.27-kvm-i386-20110114 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 05:52:27PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Hi,
Roger Leigh rle...@debian.org (23/02/2011):
From: Roger Leigh rle...@debian.org
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:14:56 +
Subject: [PATCH] Document restrictions on alternative build dependencies
The Debian autobuilders
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 18:22 +, Roger Leigh wrote:
Yes, this might need rewording. Some people claimed it was useful for
backports, so if the backports buildds are using the aptitude resolver,
they could make use of the alternatives without any changes to
debian/control; maybe it could be
6 matches
Mail list logo
